Guidelines and Mission
Author: Ziggy Pending Approval by Wiki Admins Mission To be a source of purely factual information related to the media property Overlord written by Maruyama Kugane. Why should this Wiki exist? As many already know, Overlord has another wiki, the Overlord wiki. For many months people have had complaints about it however, ranging from numerous issues, such as incited information or nonfactual information (Caloric Stone being a Twenty, City State Alliance having the strongest military, etc), actively removing canon citations and pages, posting fan fiction as canon information (Volume 12 Intermission), and in general mixing up information between properties mainly the Web Novel canon and the Light Novel canon. These grievances may appear petty, however, the months of misinformation have led to an erosion of good will among many pundits in the community to the point even mentioning the wiki leads to antagonism. Does this mean Overlord wiki should be ignored? Well people should always use the sites they like so we at this wiki don't think such antagonism should continue. However, the people of the community do deserve a source of information that addresses the failings of the other wiki. What if the Overlord wiki fixes all it's problems? Well good for them then. Maybe they can salvage their reputation. For some though, it's reached the point that reconciliation is impossible. Ziggy why don't you fix the Overlord wiki instead of working on this one? 1.) I have personally had citations and canon information removed from that wiki which contradicts the guidelines they post there. 2.) You may not know this, but the Overlord Wiki does not follow Wiki guidelines either. Many anime wiki's do not follow the rules in fact. Namely there are no permissions or copy right information posted for the images. If you aren't willing to do this don't use copy right images. Fair Use still requires this too, as the Wiki FANDOM sites want you to do this as well. Wikipedia goes further and says posting images is the same as claiming they are public domain. Both Overlord Wiki and this wiki have this caveat: "All contributions to Grand Library of Nazarick Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA (see Wikia:Licensing for details)." CC-BY-SA: Under the following terms: *Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. *ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. *No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. *Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format *Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material *for any purpose, even commercially. * The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Just edit a page and see it at the bottom of both wikis. So "No additional restrictions" under the CC-BY-SA license means you SHOULDN'T LOCK PAGES. Anyone who edits the wiki pages for example is also bound by CC-BY-SA. It doesn't count as a transformative work. And by using FANDOM you HAVE to abide by this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:But_I%27m_an_Administrator! * Sometimes in articles for deletion (AfD) discussions, one editor's argument may be given more weight over another simply because one has more edits on Wikipedia or one may even be a Wikipedia Administrator. Don't fall for it. * At the time this essay was created, the original author User:Paulmcdonald submitted this: * Each argument should stand on its own accord and on its own merits in Wikipedia discussions. That means the newest editor, with the least edits, may have the best idea or the most relevant point of view. An anonymous IP editor who just joined the project last week may have the best idea. * Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has information why they hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey that experience and argument in a way that other editors can make their own judgement based on that experience, and on the merits of that . * In other words, provide details for the experience and explain your argument, don't just respond with "Because I'm an Admin/top editor, so there." Source: https://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Page_protection YOU DON'T PERMAMENTLY LOCK PAGES " It is against FANDOM's Terms of Use to permanently protect large numbers of content pages. " Only policy pages should get perma locked or protected. "Full protection: Limits uploading new file versions, editing, renaming, and/or creating the page (if it does not exist) to administrators and Content Moderators. This protection level might be appropriate for a community policy page, wiki wordmark, or a favicon. It can be set by choosing "Administrators and content moderators only" in the options list." "Places where you may want to use protection may include: * Protecting frequently vandalized pages, such as the main page, on busy communities. * Maintaining the integrity of the site's wordmark and favicon. * Protecting community policy statements. * Templates that contain complex code and/or are necessary for a particular wiki. Temporary protection might be used for: * Enforcing a cooldown period to stop an edit war, upon request. * Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism." See you can protect pages from vandalism, but the Overlord Wiki does not abide by the terms of the people who POWER YOUR WIKI. I get it, some people are assholes and they vandalize. But that's like saying "Christmas is banned because little Jimmy shot a kids eye out!" It's non-sense. We as a community should be able to say "That N*$$@! is a vandal." And so people when they see the evidence should decide ISP bans and so forth as a community or by an admin council. And likewise, having worked more on a wiki or being an admin DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO MORE POWER. That's not why wiki's are made. The power structure should be limited to the "technical hierarchy" as determined by the wiki creator. There should be no social hierarchy here or at least not one based on seniority. If anything, a technocratic or know-it-all hierarchy might be fine like in Academia, but everyone even little 10 year old Billy should be able to edit things as he wants, and after revision the community can decide if those edits are fine using common sense. This isn't idealism either. Academics for the most part function like this in journals of good repute. We should have the same culture as well. End Rant. The majority of pages on a wiki should remain unprotected to encourage all users in the community to edit. It is against FANDOM's Terms of Use to permanently protect large numbers of content pages. Places where you may want to use protection may include: * Protecting frequently vandalized pages, such as the main page, on busy communities. * Maintaining the integrity of the site's wordmark and favicon. * Protecting community policy statements. * Templates that contain complex code and/or are necessary for a particular wiki. Temporary protection might be used for: * Enforcing a cooldown period to stop an edit war, upon request. * Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism. Protection levels Edit There are three protection levels that can be chosen for each protection option. Protection levels for all protected pages can be found on Special:Protectedpages (edit, move, and upload) and Special:Protectedtitles (creation). * Unprotected: Allows everybody to edit and rename the page. * Semi-protection: Prevents an unregistered and non-autoconfirmed user from uploading new file versions, editing, renaming, and/or creating the page (if it does not exist). This protection level is usually sufficient for most purposes and can be set by choosing "Block new and unregistered users" in the options list. * Full protection: Limits uploading new file versions, editing, renaming, and/or creating the page (if it does not exist) to administrators and Content Moderators. This protection level might be appropriate for a community policy page, wiki wordmark, or a favicon. It can be set by choosing "Administrators and content moderators only" in the options list. Before you upload an image, make sure that the image falls in one of the four categories: * Own work: You own all rights to the image, usually meaning that you created it entirely yourself. In case of a photograph or screenshot, you must also own the copyright for all copyright-protected items (e.g. statue or app) that appear in it (example, see below for details). * Freely licensed: You can prove that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license. Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable (example, see below for details). When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. * Public domain: You can prove that the image is in the public domain, i.e. free of all copyrights (example, see below for details). * Fair use: You believe that the image meets the special conditions for non-free content, which exceptionally allow the use of unlicensed material, and you can provide an explicit non-free use rationale explaining why and how you intend to use it (example, see below for details). Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Editors who notice correctable errors in fair-use tags or rationales are urged to fix them, if able. Voluntarily fixing such problems is helpful to Wikipedia, though many errors may be impossible to fix.[why?] A user may be banned for repeatedly uploading material which is neither free nor fair-use. Guidelines for images and other media files Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have explicitly been placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more. Image description pages must be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images, as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Untagged or incorrectly-tagged images will be deleted. Questions about media copyright may be directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is generally staffed by volunteers familiar with Wikipedia's media copyright guidelines and policies. Source: ☀https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy 3.) Wiki's shouldn't lock pages besides policy pages. I know they want to prevent vandalism, but the policy should clearly prevent vandalism by removing vandalism by virtue of it being non-sourced or non factual. Blanket bans on it contradicts a wiki's mission. If someone repeatedly vandalizes a wiki either by putting non-sourced information, head canon, or lies should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone only fails to cite that shouldn't be a ban. If someone puts troll messages and doesn't provide citations that under review fail to connote a scholarly intent then that should be grounds for a strike of some sort. EX.) "Ainz is a pedophile hur hur kappa yolo swag." vs. "Ainz is a big meanie who hurts people. He killed Arche >=(" The first is bad because it makes no attempt to justify the submission. The second is a more value based judgement, but it attempts to source itself with an example. Hopefully you understand what "scholarly intent" entails. The Wiki is a community resource so the community should be able to say on it's own if something belongs or doesn't belong. Moderators are needed by locking pages is not the way it should be done. Hopes for Grand Library of Nazarick Ziggy hopes this wiki will abide by the rules of wiki sites. # When uploading an image, you will want to tag it with the appropriate copyright tag. This will tell other users who look at the image what license the image falls under, thereby letting them know the copyright status of the image. Please remember that all images uploaded to FANDOM should be used under fair use or be images that are freely available, with or without conditions or restrictions. If there are requirements in the license (such as attribution) these must be adhered to, for example by attributing the author and source on the file description page. There are eight standard licensing tags that are provided by default on all newly created communities. These cover both fair and free use images, as well as a few other types of images. The tags are as follows: Public domain. For example, when the author has put the work into the public domain or the author died over 70 years ago. - for a copyrighted image which is contended to be fair use. Free licenses - Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 - Any free license such as the GNU General Public License or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike - For when the owner of the image has given full permission for it to be used freely. - For images taken from Wikimedia. Remember to add the specific license information too. - for image you made yourself, and release under a free license. Remember, a specific license tag is much better. Other - for images with no copyright information. Needless to say, most wiki's fail to follow the above rules about images. Now most people go "Fair Use though..." First, I will use the American legal system for this. First, Fair Use must adhere to strict guidelines. *Enumeration Error # Copying or posting information must not negatively affect sales of the product, with certain exceptions when out of print. (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal., 1985).) # Fair Use doesn't not have a strict percentage standard and courts suggest that it varies by case. However, the information claimed to be used in fair use is affected by the perceived effect on the sales of the original product and the scholarly intent. Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. Ga. 2014). # Posting information either before the release that hurts the marketability does not fall in Fair Use. (Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).) # Paraphrasing yet to be published information can be seen as a violation of Fair Use. (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).) # Detailed descriptions, paraphrasing, quotes, and etc can be seen as violations of Fair Use. Basically you can infringe on the right of the owner of the franchise to make their own guide book etc. (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).) (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).) # Even an encyclopedia can transform the material by putting it all in one place but can still violate Fair Use. (Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).) # Images can be used if but the main factor is that they can't hurt the abilty to sell artbooks or etc, so mainly thumbnails are fine since they are poorer quality and smaller than the main product. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).) # Using too much material that is the "heart" or main piece of a piece of media is not Fair Use. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).) # You can't just cut down a picture or downsize a bit and call it Fair Use. (Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).) Source: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ tl;dr Basically, you have to be respectful of the copyright holders like Maruyama when you claim Fair Use. You can't just images you don't own. Wiki even suggests to use your own instead, ones you actually made. Fair Use applies to translations as well. Thankfully, translators own the copyright to their work since they transform the source in their own words. Now how that affects the marketability is another issue. However if the translations are not made into a competing product and are not intended to compete with the official product they can be seen as Fair Use (Nigel mainly translates because the official product isn't even out yet, he disagrees with how they translate, and does not profit from his work). So if citations are used mainly just to provide better understanding and not a replacement for reading then it's okay. Paraphrase doesn't mean you can just summarize everything. A Respectful Platform So all that mess about Fair Use, if you compare here to the Overlord Wiki, you can see so far there is little material from the anime or illustrations unlike there. Fan Art can be used with permission, but the Wiki has whole galleries of anime screen shots, Light Novel illustrations, and so on. That's not Fair Use. Those illustrations are the "heart" of part of the Light Novel's selling points. Just ask anyone that praises so-bin's art or dislike Overlord but compliment the art. Likewise with anime screen shots. In conclusion, I hope this wiki serves as a platform for the community, one that respects copy right as best as it can, abides by the rules of the hosting wiki site, and does not betray the good will of the community to the point of becoming seen as a source of misinformation rather than factual information. Citations Ziggy feels nearly every submission be it sentences, descriptions, quotes, or image must have a citation. He's a bit obsessive and "nearly every" in his head abides by Fisher's thinking we should draw a line on coincidence or rarity. So he used 1-in-20 or 5% but we can further refine that based on needs. For a wiki, having 95% citations for information I think is a feasible amount of scholarly good will and can be sustained. Maybe 90% is fine as well or even only 75%, but I draw the line at 1-in-20 sentences not being sourced as fine since that means 19 are sourced so in general we can claim "Grand Library of Nazarick" it's best to be a source of factual information.